Under the 9th and 10th Amendments, our Constitution reserved to the states and the people all powers not specifically ceded to the national government. Can anyone believe that Constitution gave to federal judges, who did not even exist in 1789, power to order sovereign states to tear down monuments that had God's law, the Ten Commandments, engraved upon them? Does anyone believe the Constitution would have been ratified, had the free and independent states understood they were ceding such powers?
You could say that the Pacific Ocean is full of salt water and crabs would argue that it is not.
likewise, I could point out that the Pacific Ocean was saline and you would say that it was the incoherent rantings of a liberal doper and should not be believed at.
Its used alot around the group of people that I hang with.... and LOTS of other people too.
Just because you seem to think that something someone else does or says isnt "like, somehow cool", doesnt mean that others think the same way.
So perhaps, ninja, you should give it a rest.
Im just here, talking with other people, just like yourself. You have a problem with my posts, thats YOURproblem, and there is an ignore feature. Maybe you should figure out how to use it.
Theres a whole world out there, than just what you see on your CNN, or whatever channel you get your little facts and stuff from, or what you read in the newspapers. Its too bad you didnt find that out a long time ago, but trust me. The sooner you actually do figure that out, the better off you'll be.
If only Miguel Estrada had been just another mediocre tortician with a bigger mouth than brain, he might have been acceptable. If only he hadn't done so well at Harvard (magna cum laude) and Columbia (Phi Beta Kappa) or in the solicitor general's office, if only he didn't believe so strongly in what he believes in, if only his name had been Mike Smith instead of Miguel Estrada . . . then he might have been quietly confirmed -- like any other inoffensive time-server.
Damn... that would suck. He's been doing some pretty crappy shows lately..
I think I saw him on that Univision channel a few weeks ago, doing some cheesy ass spanish soap opera...
you know the ones...
where someone says something, that equals out to "Hernando is not your brother! He's your cousin!" Or something, and then they get these worried lookin eyes, and someone comes in the room with scary ass music, and says something equivalent to "The dog just ran away! Lets all go cook some eggs, and fly a kite!"......
done so well at Harvard (magna cum laude) and Columbia (Phi Beta Kappa) or in the solicitor general's office
how'd you find this out? I was under the impression that they weren't releasing any records for him...not even to the people they were asking to confirm him.
I was under the impression that they weren't releasing any records for him...not even to the people they were asking to confirm him.
That is what you get for believing the leftist extremists.
you will have to support this with something that resembles facts here. It is out there look it up yourself if you are truly interested because it is not likely you will look at it if it is provided to you.
you will have to support this with something that resembles facts here.
Hehehehe, that's funny.
Now, sort of related: I think they should go back to the old fashioned filibuster. Make those bastards actually show up and put in their time if they're going to filibuster.
I was under the impression that they weren't releasing any records for him...not even to the people they were asking to confirm him.
It is not only common practice not to give specific views on matters likely to come before the court, but it is also consistent with the constitutional mandate of judicial independence.
What is uncommon is a Senate filibuster to prevent a confirmation vote on a nominee who actually had the votes to be confirmed.
Our position is: The mistreatment of Miguel Estrada by the U.S. Senate is shameful.
Judicial nominee Miguel Estrada has finally walked away after 28 months of insults and distortions.
Estrada, nominated in 2001 by President Bush to fill a vacancy on the federal court of appeals in Washington, D.C., said Thursday that he was forced to withdraw his nomination for the sake of his family and career.
At one point, he had to change his phone number because of crank calls. His law practice was hurt by his uncertain future. And some of the criticism slung at him by Senate Democrats and advocacy groups was disturbingly personal.
In an abuse of the system, Estrada was never allowed an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor. By threatening a filibuster, Senate Democrats were able to effectively veto the nomination for more than two years.
They're following the same tactic with two other judicial nominees, Priscilla Owen and William Pryor.
Estrada, despite the accusations of Sen. Charles Schumer and other partisans, is no extremist. Four former supervisors in the Justice Department, all of whom happen to be Democrats, praised his qualifications and integrity.
In fact, Estrada is so well qualified that he was seen as a possible future Supreme Court nominee. That fact, combined with his ethnic heritage, made him a target for Senate Democrats, who feared the political implications if Bush became the first president to nominate a Hispanic to the high court.
Senate Democrats, including Indiana's Evan Bayh, should be ashamed of their mistreatment of Estrada. Fair-minded Americans should be outraged.
As I read this and think about it, its really sad what this says about politics, and moreso democrats. There is talk about the 2004 election, about how Bush is losing popularity, what will happen. In my opinion, I think Bush has done a pretty decent job. Far from perfect because I think there are still issues to address. I feel though that he is going to win because the democrats do not have a distinguishable person to run against him, and as a group they have been really despicable in some of their actions. A nominee like Estrada can't even be elected to a position because of threats by the democrats? This man is highly praised from people of both sides of the political spectrum. He would probably get enough votes to be confirmed. The democrats can't handle that so they threaten with a fillibuster. I'm so proud to see democracy at its best. Its also wonderful how democrats left Texas because things weren't going their way. I feel like its underhanded and childish. I don't want people like that running the country. In a sense they are running the country because its hard to do even normal procedures it seems.
Have you even looked into the history or facts surrounding the issue?
enough to know that the previous redistricting could not have resulted in the Repubs leaving the state to block it ("Did the Republicans leave TX when the Democrats drew the lines?..NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO" - torpedo), since it was decided by a court.
look...we are talking about Texas politics here...traditionally Texas politicians put clowns climbing out of tiny cars to shame.
Texas politicians put clowns climbing out of tiny cars to shame.
Especially when they're driving their little cars out of state so they can throw a tantrumm instead of doing the job they were elected and paid to do in the first place.
There is Texas precedent for what is going on here. At least twice in the past, Democrats have brought redistricting legislation up for a vote at times other than the year of or after the census. The precedent was, however, for state legislature redistricting, not Congress.
In Coercing Virtue, Bork writes that the New Class uses international laws and organizations —like the International Criminal Court or the European Convention for Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms — to make their cases against U.S. policy at home and abroad.
Under the 9th and 10th Amendments, our Constitution reserved to the states and the people all powers not specifically ceded to the national government. Can anyone believe that Constitution gave to federal judges, who did not even exist in 1789, power to order sovereign states to tear down monuments that had God's law, the Ten Commandments, engraved upon them? Does anyone believe the Constitution would have been ratified, had the free and independent states understood they were ceding such powers?
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/patbuchanan/pb20030831.shtml
it's call(ed) advertising
So?
I'm sure you view it that way. It's called doing the right thing because you care about your fellow human beings.
You could say that the Pacific Ocean is full of salt water and crabs would argue that it is not.
At least he's cheap entertainment.
likewise, I could point out that the Pacific Ocean was saline and you would say that it was the incoherent rantings of a liberal doper and should not be believed at.
what's your point?
perhaps I already do.
goody.
Now your catch'in on crabs.
what?
that you don't have a clue?
nah...I figured that out a long time ago.
You certainly are a strange fellow.
yea...so?
Can I play in the sandbox next??
Can I play in the sandbox next??
Sure, if you want. But be warned it is full of cat shit.
Ninja... i didnt say "litter box"...
Its used alot around the group of people that I hang with.... and LOTS of other people too.
Just because you seem to think that something someone else does or says isnt "like, somehow cool", doesnt mean that others think the same way.
So perhaps, ninja, you should give it a rest.
Im just here, talking with other people, just like yourself. You have a problem with my posts, thats YOURproblem, and there is an ignore feature. Maybe you should figure out how to use it.
Theres a whole world out there, than just what you see on your CNN, or whatever channel you get your little facts and stuff from, or what you read in the newspapers. Its too bad you didnt find that out a long time ago, but trust me. The sooner you actually do figure that out, the better off you'll be.
If only Miguel Estrada had been just another mediocre tortician with a bigger mouth than brain, he might have been acceptable. If only he hadn't done so well at Harvard (magna cum laude) and Columbia (Phi Beta Kappa) or in the solicitor general's office, if only he didn't believe so strongly in what he believes in, if only his name had been Mike Smith instead of Miguel Estrada . . . then he might have been quietly confirmed -- like any other inoffensive time-server.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/paulgreenberg/pg20030909.shtml
I wonder if he's related to that Erik Estrada
ninja
, that played Ponch on "CHiP's"
maybe they are one and the same!
Damn... that would suck. He's been doing some pretty crappy shows lately..
I think I saw him on that Univision channel a few weeks ago, doing some cheesy ass spanish soap opera...
you know the ones...
where someone says something, that equals out to "Hernando is not your brother! He's your cousin!" Or something, and then they get these worried lookin eyes, and someone comes in the room with scary ass music, and says something equivalent to "The dog just ran away! Lets all go cook some eggs, and fly a kite!"......
how'd you find this out? I was under the impression that they weren't releasing any records for him...not even to the people they were asking to confirm him.
You mean the ones that no other potential judge in history has been asked for ?
you will have to support this with something that resembles facts here.
I was under the impression that they weren't releasing any records for him...not even to the people they were asking to confirm him.
That is what you get for believing the leftist extremists.
you will have to support this with something that resembles facts here. It is out there look it up yourself if you are truly interested because it is not likely you will look at it if it is provided to you.
Well Crabs if you didn't knwo what I was talking about in regards to records why did you post this ?
you will have to support this with something that resembles facts here.
Hehehehe, that's funny.
Now, sort of related: I think they should go back to the old fashioned filibuster. Make those bastards actually show up and put in their time if they're going to filibuster.
rolls eyes
I just questioned your claim that the withheld records in this case were never previously presented when considering a confirmation.
Excellent !
I was under the impression that they weren't releasing any records for him...not even to the people they were asking to confirm him.
It is not only common practice not to give specific views on matters likely to come before the court, but it is also consistent with the constitutional mandate of judicial independence.
What is uncommon is a Senate filibuster to prevent a confirmation vote on a nominee who actually had the votes to be confirmed.
Indystar.com
Our position is: The mistreatment of Miguel Estrada by the U.S. Senate is shameful.
Judicial nominee Miguel Estrada has finally walked away after 28 months of insults and distortions.
Estrada, nominated in 2001 by President Bush to fill a vacancy on the federal court of appeals in Washington, D.C., said Thursday that he was forced to withdraw his nomination for the sake of his family and career.
At one point, he had to change his phone number because of crank calls. His law practice was hurt by his uncertain future. And some of the criticism slung at him by Senate Democrats and advocacy groups was disturbingly personal.
In an abuse of the system, Estrada was never allowed an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor. By threatening a filibuster, Senate Democrats were able to effectively veto the nomination for more than two years.
They're following the same tactic with two other judicial nominees, Priscilla Owen and William Pryor.
Estrada, despite the accusations of Sen. Charles Schumer and other partisans, is no extremist. Four former supervisors in the Justice Department, all of whom happen to be Democrats, praised his qualifications and integrity.
In fact, Estrada is so well qualified that he was seen as a possible future Supreme Court nominee. That fact, combined with his ethnic heritage, made him a target for Senate Democrats, who feared the political implications if Bush became the first president to nominate a Hispanic to the high court.
Senate Democrats, including Indiana's Evan Bayh, should be ashamed of their mistreatment of Estrada. Fair-minded Americans should be outraged.
As I read this and think about it, its really sad what this says about politics, and moreso democrats. There is talk about the 2004 election, about how Bush is losing popularity, what will happen. In my opinion, I think Bush has done a pretty decent job. Far from perfect because I think there are still issues to address. I feel though that he is going to win because the democrats do not have a distinguishable person to run against him, and as a group they have been really despicable in some of their actions. A nominee like Estrada can't even be elected to a position because of threats by the democrats? This man is highly praised from people of both sides of the political spectrum. He would probably get enough votes to be confirmed. The democrats can't handle that so they threaten with a fillibuster. I'm so proud to see democracy at its best. Its also wonderful how democrats left Texas because things weren't going their way. I feel like its underhanded and childish. I don't want people like that running the country. In a sense they are running the country because its hard to do even normal procedures it seems.
it was the Republican attempts to further redistrict that was underhanded and childish.
Changing things that you feel is wrong by a legitimate vote is childish but running away crying and screaming isn't?
Its fun to see big "bad ass" people in politics sitting around crying....
Damn... maybe someone could pay Mr. T to beat up Arnold Shwarzeneggar (however its spelled).
it was the Republican attempts to further redistrict that was underhanded and childish.
That's either ignorant, or an outright lie.
The current Texas districting is a sham. The Texas voters are not be represented fairly.
You have 60% of the population registered as Republican, yet the districts are such that the other 40% have all the voting power.
Did the Republicans leave TX when the Democrats drew the lines?..NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.
three judges?
leavind is a REaction, not an action.
a reaction to a bald-faced grab for power, nothing else.
a reaction to a bald-faced grab for power, nothing else
Another example of crabs living in fantasy land.
a bald-faced grab for power
More nonsense.
Have you even looked into the history or facts surrounding the issue?
enough to know that the previous redistricting could not have resulted in the Repubs leaving the state to block it ("Did the Republicans leave TX when the Democrats drew the lines?..NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO" - torpedo), since it was decided by a court.
look...we are talking about Texas politics here...traditionally Texas politicians put clowns climbing out of tiny cars to shame.
"look...we are talking about Texas politics here...traditionally Texas politicians put clowns climbing out of tiny cars to shame." - crabs
So the voters of Texas, who cares about them? But OH MY GOD those voters in Florida got screwed!
Typical liberal. If they vote for the other party, those voters are clowns; if they vote for my party, they are disenfranchised.
Especially when they're driving their little cars out of state so they can throw a tantrumm instead of doing the job they were elected and paid to do in the first place.
they weren't being asked to stay in order to do any job...they were being asked to stay so that they could be ignored.
crabgrass 9/10/03 2:18pm
Oh, so their job as elected officials isn't to vote on legislation.
I guess it's o.k when you know you're going to lose a vote, then you can run.
BTW who was the "they" that were asking them to stay ?
look...we are talking about Texas politics here...traditionally Texas politicians put clowns climbing out of tiny cars to shame.
Great justification of injustice, Crabby.
There is Texas precedent for what is going on here. At least twice in the past, Democrats have brought redistricting legislation up for a vote at times other than the year of or after the census. The precedent was, however, for state legislature redistricting, not Congress.
In Coercing Virtue, Bork writes that the New Class uses international laws and organizations —like the International Criminal Court or the European Convention for Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms — to make their cases against U.S. policy at home and abroad.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,97117,00.html
Can anyone tell me why it burning an American flag is protected free speech but giving money to a political candidate is not?
I don't think anyone can tell you anything, bodine
I don't think anyone can tell you anything, bodine
If you believe why don't you stop trying?
you actually think I'm trying?